Education assistance and/or fully subsidized post-secondary education

[krazykikikat]

I am in a bit of a rut. I want to make a change in higher education policy, but I don't know where to start.
My grievance springs from the inadequacies of the FAFSA's system for determining financial need. I think it's ridiculous that legal adults who don't live with, depend on, or even have any contact with their parents, may still be considered financially dependent -- limiting, in the government's eyes, their need for aid. I think the inequality of this would be a pretty easy point to make. BUT. I don't quite know what alternative I could propose.
In addition, my underlying grievance is that we Americans have to pay for college at all. Other countries have free college for anyone who gets good enough grades, and I think that's a smart idea, considering the country would benefit from producing more educated individuals.

So on the one hand, I feel like petitioning for a change in the aid system would just be a band-aid, and isn't what I ultimately think should happen, therefore might be too much effort for too little gain. On the other hand, I know activists have been petitioning for subsidized education for a long time, and what difference could I make? Perhaps we need to find another foothold, just get a little closer to full subsidization, before the government will even consider going that route, in which case revising the financial aid system is a worthwhile pursuit.
I'm tempted to go for the smaller aim first, changing financial aid.

But even if I do decide which route to take, I don't really know where to start. I suppose I would try to make change in the usual democratic way: getting the attention of the higher-ups. But that already presents one question: which higher-ups are in charge of legislation that might change the financial aid system? And what alternative to the current system can I offer them? I am not very good with numbers and matters of the economy baffle me; but I DO know that there are perhaps millions of Americans who need help funding college and are not getting it, and for ridiculous reasons.

And once I know who to talk to and what to say, how should I begin whipping up support? Writing letters, posting fliers, sending out pamphlets, holding protests? Should I found a local activism group, or even an online one to coordinate nationwide protest? Are there such groups for this specific aim already that I might join?
I confess I would prefer to be in a leadership position, because I'm the kind of person who feels I need to do things myself if they are to be done right. But, as I've said, I don't really know enough about activism methods to be a leader -- yet. And I am willing to be subordinate to someone who does have experience and who I deem to be a competent leader. I just want to take an active part, more active than putting my name on a petition, perhaps more active than holding a sign.

Any pointers?

[T Wolf]

1. IMO, the only sane goal for an eduction program would be a fully-subsidized system

similar to what many European nations have. If you can do the work, the country foots the bill for your education.

We (sorta) do that for elementary and high school, why not for university?

Trying to "fix" the current system is a losing battle. It has actually gone backwards from 30-40 years ago when I attended. Back then, the "aid" was more grants and "work-study" paid jobs and low-interest (1% - 2%) loans instead of the market-rate loans that now dominate the aid equation and force students into deep debt. This change has put more emphasis on the job-training aspects of higher education at the cost of reducing the actual "education in thinking" that used to be one of the goals.

American business wants their future employees trained to do the jobs that corporations provide - they just do not value education for its own sake. Hence, the fucked up system of granting access that we currently suffer under.

Until that basic reasoning changes, I do not see much else improving either.

[county worker]

2. elementary and high school are paid for through taxing property.

To add higher education to that means raising the tax on property. Our county rate ia 1.0765%. On a house payment of $2000 that is an additional $300 per month. So principal, interest and taxes would be $2,300 per month. Add higher education and that property tax could double. The monthly house payment would be around $2,600.

Is that what you are calling for?

[krazykikikat]

4. This is a point I've thought about before.

I do believe that taxes must sometimes be raised for important things. On the other hand, part of the reason my own parents can't afford to help me is because of their mortgage payments. If we went too far with raising taxes to pay for education, very few people would benefit in the end; even the college students who got their grants might run into trouble once they try to buy a house, if their chosen vocation isn't exactly a big money-spinner.

The question I ask in response to this question is, how do the other countries do it? I've heard people say that their taxes are just "insanely high". But it seems wealth is at least more evenly distributed, or at the very least, I haven't heard anyone who actually lives in a country with fully subsidized higher education complain about it. They're obviously finding some way to stay prosperous while paying for the education of the whole nation.
How do they do it? I've searched all over for a definitive answer to this and I can't find one.
Maybe at first there was an increase in poverty due to the high taxes, but as the first generations that got free education entered the workforce, it balanced out again? Or perhaps they cut spending in other areas so the taxes wouldn't be too high?
I don't know. I would dearly like to know, I think it would help us formulate a plan for instituting a similar system in the U.S.

[county worker]

5. While I was in graduate school studying global economics I learned this.

There are two different models in the US and Europe. Shareholders wealth maximization in the US and stakeholders wealth maximization in Europe are competing theories.

The fundamental distinction is that the stakeholder theory
demands that interests of all stakeholders be considered even if it
reduces company profitability. In other words, under the shareholder
theory, nonshareholders can be viewed as "means" to the
"ends" of profitability; under the stakeholder theory, the interests
of many nonshareholders are also viewed as "ends."^

Look it up

[T Wolf]

7. The Europeans may as well be froma different planet. Their (more advanced) approach to life and

the way they structure their society constantly shows itself to be a better way.

But, as you point out - the Euro way is better for everyone (stakeholders). Here we only care about ourselves (shareholders) and the social contract that links members of a society is on its deathbed thanks to the Raygun-greed-is-good heritage of the last 30 years.

[krazykikikat]

9. I looked it up

and I'm intrigued. So how does that work, then? Is there just no shareholder system in those countries at all, no buying and selling stocks? Is that all, in practice, that is different?
And would higher education institutions be considered a stakeholder?

[county worker]

10. Yes there are shareholders but they are just one group of stakeholders.

Higher education is a stakeholder because of two things. Education benefits the other stakeholders and provides brain power to the shareholders.

[T Wolf]

6. I am advocating higher taxes (a return to a progressive rate is essential) and a change

in the priority of what this country spends our money on.

There is plenty of money for war and corporate welfare, but none for medical care and education?

Property taxes are an unfair way to (completely) finance things. Mainly, what should be taxed is income.

As for your numbers - I could not really follow your example. I do know that the mortgage payment you state ($2,000) is pretty damn high (to me). We are in our second home and when we "traded up" - we did not greatly increase our monthly payment. We do live in a high tax area and our taxes are almost equal to our bank mortgage. But together, they only total around $1,100 a month. What kind of estate do you live on that demands a mortgage three times as high?

Details aside, it is just a question of what is valued (and supported) by a society. Here in the USofA, education is way down the list.

[county worker]

8. I don't live on an estate. I am buying a house in Lompoc, CA in a development called Providence

Landing. The house cost $365K. I have nothing down because I lost my equity due to the housing bubble. I have a VA loan since I am a Vietnam Vet and the interest rate is 4.875%. The principal and interest payment is $2,015 a month and the taxes are going to be around $300.

If I don't buy such a house I will pay the same amount to income tax. I will not get to save or spend the money. This way I have the house and a tax deduction. That is if the cat food commission doesn't do away with the interest deduction.

[T Wolf]

12. Sorry. I did come down on you a bit harsh. I recognize that too many of us have been

screwed over as "collateral damage" from the manipulations of the economy by those on top. Many, like you, are trapped and have no good alternatives.

My family has been fortunate enough to have good jobs (in the non-profit sector). AND we have always tempered our purchases by what we could afford (and what seemed reasonable/sane). Thus, our low mortgage. If one of us lost our job, we could still afford to keep the house on the remaining income. We're just old-fashioned (conservative?) that way.

Back to the topic - I do believe that all education should be "paid for" by the state. If that requires a tax hike, so be it. I assert that there is plenty of money to afford what we as a society need. The problem is that too much of our resources are siphoned off for (IMO) unnecessary things (like war and support for the wealthy).

My wife is a high school guidance counselor who deals with college admissions and financial aid as a major part of her job. We both know the insanity of the current system and how it squeezes (strangles) the middle class. A real shocker is the "family contribution" that FAFSA calculates. Are they insane?!?!?! But it does serve its purpose of driving wedges between (should-be) allies against the rich. All the while, they sit to the side and laugh at us.

The result is that we, the people, are left to fight (each other) over the crumbs swept to the floor by the financial elite.

[krazykikikat]

13. Yeah the family contribution calculator is bull

They calculated that my family should be contributing a certain amount, I don't remember exactly but if they did give me that amount of money, there home would likely be foreclosed, they'd have to stay home from work because they wouldn't be able to afford childcare for my baby sister, thus digging them deeper into debt, and they'd probably never pay off their own student loans.
I dunno where the hell they come up with that number from.

[dkf]

17. Yet the state doesn't incur costs over wars. They incur costs like education

Infrastructure, general welfare, unemployment, etc.

Their taxing structures are already very strained. I don't see how adding free college education when some are considering cutting kindergarten helps the state budget any.

[krazykikikat]

3. I see your point

and I agree. Loans are a big part of what I'm talking about too, though. I'm forced to take out loans, as are plenty of college students, because the FAFSA has deemed that I don't need any help. My parents combined make just over $100k a year. I see almost none of that. If I'm really down on money they can usually give me about a hundred, or buy something for me. But they live in WA and I live in MN. I certainly don't depend on them for everyday things. I get $300 a month from my deceased father's retirement funds, and I've been unable to find a job in this market -- that money, and a little I have tucked away in my dad's MetLife account, is all I have. BUT, since I'm forced to put my parents' info on the FAFSA, and my parents are middle-class, they think they should be paying for it.

I'm proposing they find a different way to determine financial need, focusing mostly on eliminating the ridiculous dependency criteria. Then I, and other people in my situation, would have access to grants and work-study. (I don't even qualify for work-study; that's right, I'm not even allowed to WORK for my tuition.)

Of course it's a two-pronged problem: how, then, do we determine dependency more fairly, and where do we get the money for these extra grants? I only have vague ideas as of yet.

[SocialistLez]

11. I wish they factored in bills.

If they looked at my parents bills versus what they bring in....I'd get a hell lot more financial aid.

Thankfully I have had scholarships and I'm only responsible for footing the bill for books, gas money, etc.

[krazykikikat]

14. Yeah

That is something I wish they would do too. I thought of that as a way to maybe change the FAFSA, have them factor in more than they do.

Anyway, I still don't know how to go about this. I suppose I should have a clear-cut alternative plan before writing to any lawmakers, but it's a really tough situation! I feel like I should say that's their job, to find the answers and fix the country, but being a democracy, it is kind of our job. A government run by the people is a double-edged sword sometimes...

[krazykikikat]

15. Incidentally...

The issue of what is taught in schools in America is an entirely different thing, although in this case it is sort of related and a bit ironic...
I don't really know what to do about my desire for activism in this area. I'm lost when it comes to the methods of democracy, what actions the common people can take.
The funny thing is, if high school history and government classes were more honest, I might have had a better idea by now. I'm only 19, I've taken only three college history/government classes, and I still don't know what I, as a citizen, can do.
Of course I am taking great delight in my new history book which often speaks candidly about America's actions in the past. The book is called Give Me Liberty! so at first I thought it would be a cliche about how America is the land of the free.... /barf
But actually the title turned out to be a wry commentary on the fact that the definitions of freedom and liberty change so frequently and are actually the crux of most of our conflicts as a nation. As much as I need the few bucks I could get from buyback, I may keep this book.

But anyway, in relation to the issue at hand, teaching more effectively would help our younger generations to be more active in matters of the state. As it stands, high school government classes teach the bare bones and exalt needlessly about the "proud" roots of our country. None of us really learn anything practical until college, and with it being so difficult to pay for college, it's almost like the government doesn't WANT us learning how we can be a driving force in our own nation.... Hmmmmmm.

[onpatrol98]

16. Great Discussion

I think the hardest thing I've had to instill in my children is that scholarships do still exist even in this awful economy if they spend more time with the books than the cell phones. My oldest son has been blessed with academic and band scholarships. Academics have always been a tug of war with my middle sons. But, the tide seems to be turning with #3.

;-)

With good grades and a better sense of priorities, more of our children can alleviate some of the financial pressures by excelling academically. I've been trying to instill a sense of survival in them. My parents were unable to foot my college bill. Academic scholarships and work study were available to me.

We've been able to help my second son financially. But, with #3 entering college in a few years, I'm watching him academically, like a hawk. My parents used to say, "just as good" isn't good enough. You have to be "twice as good". It sounds horrible, I know. But, I believe it'll be worth it. To my horror, I've turned into my parents.

My daily morning mantra to one of my sons has become...don't forget...hit the books, a few schools will still "pay you to attend." Goof off...and you get to pay them to attend. I know his best may still not be good enough for scholarships. But, at least I'll know he tried.

I want them to know that there are ways of making "paying" for college a little easier, if they'll only pay a little more attention in school now. But, it's a struggle.

My fingers and toes are crossed. At least, I have several years before son #4 gets close to college.